"and the implication of the aforementioned ḥadīth: that there was a bathhouse in his time in Medina, which contradicts what is known, and that he foretold the conquest of the lands of Syria with bathhouses after him and the entry of groups of Companions at that time, and thus ʿĀʾishah and Umm Salamah said to those women who entered upon them after his death from those who enter it (!), and all of this is apparent and not hidden." Thus he said! Despite the obscurity of some words in the phrase, the intended meaning is clear; he follows in this the earlier scholars, the earliest of whom I know is al-Khaṭīb; for he said in his book "al-Muwaḍḍiḥ" (1/362) after weakening the ḥadīth of (Zabān): "Although the ḥadīth is unlikely to be authentic; because there was no bathhouse in Medina during the time of the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), and bathhouses were only in that time in the lands of Syria and Persia." Then he supported his statement with what he narrated through the route of al-Ifriqī from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Rāfiʿ from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr in a marfūʿ form: "Indeed, the lands of the non-Arabs will be opened for you, and you will find in them houses called bathhouses..." the ḥadīth. I said: And this is quite strange; that he uses such a ḥadīth as evidence, and al-Ifriqī is weak, as is his teacher, as I have quoted from al-Ḥāfiẓ in "Ghāyat al-Marām" (192), and then I further clarified it in "al-Ḍaʿīfah" (6819). Even stranger: Shaykh al-Nājī's disregard of this weakness, which al-Mundhirī pointed out (1/88/2), and al-Nājī did not respond to it at all! He ignored it by confidently attributing it to the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) with his previous statement: